According to John Hasler:
> Besides, even if I do pay him that $100,000 and get a license to use
> his patent, my license to use the Apple code that implements it is
> still suspended.
Quite possibly.
--
Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"When do you work?" "Wheneve
It seems like it's possible to achieve your objectives without preventing
Debian and other Linux distributions from including your program by making a
few changes in how you ask commercial users to pay:
> My original intention of charging commercial users is to:
> - recover the cost of web b
GPL is far from a straight forward licensing policy. This current excercise
will hopefully clear up a lot of things, at least for me. So I thank Gregor
for taking the initiative.
In the end, my approach either violates GPL or not. Let's keep the issues
with poor practice out of this. I will get ar
Gregor writes:
> From your understanding: Would we be allowed to include this piece in
> Debian (i.e. is it DFSG free) or is not not ?
What he has done is release wtest under the GPL with the added condition
that it is not free for commercial use and that you must get his permission
to use it to t
Gregor Hoffleit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
COPYRIGHT
This software adheres to the GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE.
You can re-use portions of this software and create a modified
version of the software only if the resultant work also adheres to
GPL.
COST
The soft
Please, would you tell me what you think about the conditions on wtest
(http://www.interlog.com/~bibhas/wtest/WTEST.html).
In the README to wtest, there is:
COPYRIGHT
This software adheres to the GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE.
You can re-use portions of this software and create a modified
Hi all, I have decided that i put the guides of LDP
under non-free until there will have a change of licence ...
problems ?
best regards
Andrea Fanfani
--
Andrea Fanfani
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Excerpts from direct: 20-Apr-99 Re: ilu-base: ILU's license.. John
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (581)
> The license contains this bit of sillines:
> "Any distribution of this software, a modified version thereof, or a
> derivative work must comply with all applicable United States export
> control law
Chip Salzenberg writes:
> I meant this:
>>> If Apple suspends Your rights to Affected Original Code,
>>> nothing in this License shall be construed to restrict You,
>>> at Your option and subject to applicable law, from [...]
>>> independently negotiating for necessary rights from such
>>> third p
According to John Hasler:
> Chip Salzenberg writes:
> > Given the way patent law works, could it not be argued that the lack of a
> > similar phrase in the GPL is actually a defect in the GPL?
>
> No.
OK, point taken. The GPL is a tool of social change, and as such, it
uses patent threats as lev
According to John Hasler:
> Chip Salzenberg writes:
> > I'm not dismissing you. I'm pointing to the real culprits that have made
> > this clause of the APSL *necessary*.
>
> You have a legal opinion on this? Case law? Relevant statutes?
"Ya got me." No, I don't. But the OSI has a lawyer at o
Raul writes:
> ...it's also not something to waste a bunch of angst on.
I'm expending no angst at all on it. I doubt Apple has anything worthwhile
to offer anyway.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
I want to get a solid understanding on why the free license is better than
nothing. :) The reason of question is that for Russian language there are two
ispell dictionaries. One is free, and one is "for personal use only". The
latter is much better than the former since it's smaller but have a m
Raul Miller writes:
> > Personally, I have no problems with them distributing software under this
> > license (that's outside my scope): I just would hate to see us
> > misclassify this as a free license.
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem is that others will misclassify this as
Raul Miller writes:
> Personally, I have no problems with them distributing software under this
> license (that's outside my scope): I just would hate to see us
> misclassify this as a free license.
The problem is that others will misclassify this as a free license even if
we don't.
--
John Hasle
Rob Browning writes:
> I contacted Bill Janssen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> who was listed in the
> Debian copyright file, and he just said that the license has been changed
> to make it completely free.
> All the new info (copyright etc.) is availble via
> ftp://ftp.parc.xerox.com/pub/ilu/ilu.html
The l
Ben writes:
> > I won't use ``free'' software that can be arbitrarily revoked by a
> > corporation, and I hope that no one else will, either.
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I won't. I would rather see Apple drop the whole thing than publish under
> this license.
Personally, I have no p
Chip Salzenberg writes:
> Given the way patent law works, could it not be argued that the lack of a
> similar phrase in the GPL is actually a defect in the GPL?
No. From the GPL:
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
infringement or for any other reason (not lim
Ben writes:
> I won't use ``free'' software that can be arbitrarily revoked by a
> corporation, and I hope that no one else will, either.
I won't. I would rather see Apple drop the whole thing than publish under
this license.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmw
Ben writes:
> Are you willing to trust lawyers? I'm not.
I am. Most of the lawyers I have had dealings with have been honest,
ethical men who did their best to advance their client's interests. This
license was written by lawyers who have Apple for a client.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (J
Chip Salzenberg writes:
> I'm not dismissing you. I'm pointing to the real culprits that have made
> this clause of the APSL *necessary*.
You have a legal opinion on this? Case law? Relevant statutes?
> Individuals and pseudo-individuals like corportations should be trusted
> in varying degree
Chip Salzenberg writes:
> This view doesn't allow for out-of-court settlements, which are often the
> best way to resolve contentious issues quickly.
"Out-of-court settlements". Yes. Interesting possibilities there. "We'll
trade you a license for our foobar algorithm that is in your foobaz pack
Chip Salzenberg writes:
> Perhaps you should consider just how much 'protection' you have with
> alternative licenses.
"Protection"? What is that supposed to mean? The only 'protection' I need
or want with a free software license is protection against claims of
infringement by the author.
--
Jo
23 matches
Mail list logo
